Here are some of the examples used in the workshop, “How to accurately report on medical research findings,” at the Association of Health Care Journalists annual conference, April 23, 2015 in Santa Clara, California. The workshop was led by Gary Schwitzer, publisher of HealthNewsReview.org, and Ivan Oransky, MD, Vice President and Global Editorial Director, MedPage Today. We are posting these examples here so that journalists can visit the links during the workshop, and afterwards.
1) Journal article: “A Clinical Study of Lupron Dept in the Treatment of Women With Alzheimer’s Disease.” (Although we do not recommend only reading the abstract, for the sake of time in this workshop, just read the abstract.)
2) Journal article abstract: “Dose of Jogging and Long-Term Mortality.” http://content.onlinejacc.org/article.aspx?articleID=2108914
3) Journal article: “Association Between More Frequent Chocolate Consumption and Lower Body Mass Index.”
4) Journal article: “Vegetarian Dietary Patterns and the Risk of Colorectal Cancers.”
5) Journal article abstract: “Predicting risk of mild cognitive impairment in the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging.”
6) Check your evidence – check the study
1) Press release: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-01/w-luo012015.php
Abstract: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bcp.12535/abstract
Compare and contrast. Which is more useful and true to the findings?
How would you report this?
3) Press release: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-01/esoh-sdl012615.php
Abstract: http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/3/675
Compare and contrast. Which is more useful and true to the findings? How would you report this?
Does The Language Fit The Evidence? Association Versus Causation (observational studies) https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/tips-for-understanding-studies/does-the-language-fit-the-evidence-association-versus-causation/
Surrogate Markers May Not Tell The Whole Story – https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/tips-for-understanding-studies/surrogate-markers-may-not-tell-the-whole-story/
Be Careful With Composites (composite endpoints) – https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/tips-for-understanding-studies/be-careful-with-composites/
Mixed Messages About Statistical Significance – https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/tips-for-understanding-studies/mixed-messages-about-statistical-significance/
Odds ratios – Primer by Dr. Jerome Hoffman, Professor of Medicine Emeritus, UCLA School of Medicine
Confidence Intervals –
Subgroup Analysis
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Take all the issues enmeshed in any cancer screening story and amplify it with the liquid biopsy issue. @AP's @CarlaKJohnson. did a solid job here. https://apnews.com/article/science-business-health-hodgkin-lymphoma-oregon-ca899bb9c4c7f1859d4e9ce16a1cf78d
Come on, NY Times; you must do better than this. Important research doesn’t need hype and the “breaking news” BS doesn’t help readers or patients. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2022/03/nyt-proclaims-breaking-news/
Comments (1)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Ray Lewis
April 27, 2015 at 11:38 amI recently shared your work on LinkedIn, so perhaps that would be a good location to advocate for better journalism that influences the public mind set.
“Thank you Dr Katz for continuing to point out the barriers to science based health research interpretated through the media with their own interests. One of my favorites is Gary Schwitzer at http://healthnewsreview.org/.
Politics around health decision-making adds another dimension.”
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/oz-ozymandias-science-soundbites-symptoms-systemic-l-katz-md-mph
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like